This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

You never actually own the land itself, it's the detachment of not being able to pass it on, although you can pass on the structure and the lease can be paid for by your heirs.

Ah.

I can see a flat land tax, based on area owned, being more acceptable.

After all, there are those who argue that the Declaration of Independence was intended by some of it’s composers to read:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Property.

Instead of:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

Originally Posted by American

I would add some portability to this plan.

I agree with this. There would be lots of scenarios where a guy works his entire life in NY, then retires and moves to a rural area in South Carolina. Which country pays for his Medicaid? NY City has a much higher cost of living than a rural county in the South.

I love the plan though. Anytime we can take power away from a concentrated group of people and spread it out among the populace I'm usually for it.

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

Originally Posted by Winnb

I agree with this. There would be lots of scenarios where a guy works his entire life in NY, then retires and moves to a rural area in South Carolina. Which country pays for his Medicaid? NY City has a much higher cost of living than a rural county in the South.

I love the plan though. Anytime we can take power away from a concentrated group of people and spread it out among the populace I'm usually for it.

The county in South Carolina, the county of residence, would pay for his Medicare (sic) and Social Security. I don't think there is a portability issue here. Do you think otherwise. Explain it to me, please...

Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

Originally Posted by reefedjib

The county in South Carolina, the county of residence, would pay for his Medicare (sic) and Social Security. I don't think there is a portability issue here. Do you think otherwise. Explain it to me, please...

I am really glad you love it.

Well Social Security is based on how much money a person earns over their lifetime. If I work in NY City and avg 80k per year for 30 years at my job my SSA check is gonna be much higher than a guy who makes 30k per year in South Carolina.

So when I move from NY City to a rural county I bring the debt of my SSA check with me. The rural country now has to cut a check for me every month, but the rural county hasn't had the years of benefit from my property taxes (and other taxes) that NY got from me.

One of the reasons many people move when they retire is to make their retirement money (their fixed income) "go farther". It's why many people move to areas with a lower cost of living.

Let's say my Social Security check after I retire brings me $2,000 per month. And my wife also gets $2000 per month. We're gonna want to live somewhere that gets me the highest standard of living for that 4 grand per month. That will not be NY City.

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

Originally Posted by Winnb

Well Social Security is based on how much money a person earns over their lifetime. If I work in NY City and avg 80k per year for 30 years at my job my SSA check is gonna be much higher than a guy who makes 30k per year in South Carolina.

So when I move from NY City to a rural county I bring the debt of my SSA check with me. The rural country now has to cut a check for me every month, but the rural county hasn't had the years of benefit from my property taxes (and other taxes) that NY got from me.

One of the reasons many people move when they retire is to make their retirement money (their fixed income) "go farther". It's why many people move to areas with a lower cost of living.

Let's say my Social Security check after I retire brings me $2,000 per month. And my wife also gets $2000 per month. We're gonna want to live somewhere that gets me the highest standard of living for that 4 grand per month. That will not be NY City.

That's right, I had forgotten that the amount is based on your history of income.

We could freeze all amounts right now, and for those who will start collecting checks in say 5 years, will get the cost of living fixed amount, not tied to their income.

Well you could have the county where the majority of a person's career (or their residence) is spent continue paying the tab. But they would need to be kept in the loop of where the recipient now resides or if he passes away, etc... That means a whole lot of small counties staying in touch with a lot of big ones (and vice versa) and lots of paperwork. Which means lots of mistakes.

No matter how much money someone collects in their SSA check they're still gonna want to get the most bang for their buck. It's why so money people move when they retire. That and they usually like to move to warmer weather.

It's gonna be tough to find a solution that simplifies SSA, removes the power from DC, and keeps people from freaking out over it. Any change to SSA is going to be met with hostility by those who currently benefit from the system or those who will soon benefit.

The absolute best thing to do, and I have no easy answer for this either, is to find a way to phase out the entire program.

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

Originally Posted by Winnb

Well you could have the county where the majority of a person's career (or their residence) is spent continue paying the tab. But they would need to be kept in the loop of where the recipient now resides or if he passes away, etc... That means a whole lot of small counties staying in touch with a lot of big ones (and vice versa) and lots of paperwork. Which means lots of mistakes.

No matter how much money someone collects in their SSA check they're still gonna want to get the most bang for their buck. It's why so money people move when they retire. That and they usually like to move to warmer weather.

It's gonna be tough to find a solution that simplifies SSA, removes the power from DC, and keeps people from freaking out over it. Any change to SSA is going to be met with hostility by those who currently benefit from the system or those who will soon benefit.

The absolute best thing to do, and I have no easy answer for this either, is to find a way to phase out the entire program.

****, what a mess. I didn't really know what PAYGO represented, but on a hunch I looked it up: [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO]PAYGO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Social Insurance
In social insurance, PAYGO refers to an unfunded system in which current contributors to the system pay the expenses for the current recipients. In a pure PAYGO system, no reserves are accumulated and all contributions are paid out in the same period. The opposite of a PAYGO system is a funded system, in which contributions are accumulated and paid out later (together with the interest on it) when eligibility requirements are met.

U.S. Social Security
An important example of such a PAYGO system in this second sense is Social Security in the U.S. In that system, contributions are paid by the currently employed population in the form of a payroll tax, also called the FICA tax, which stands for the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act", while recipients are mostly individuals of at least 62 years of age. Social Security is not a pure PAYGO system, because it accumulates excess revenue in so-called Trust Funds, officially known as the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds (OASDI).

And here is the problem, as I see it. The federal government has promised a certain amount of social security to retiring and about to retire individuals, based on their income. However, it is an unfunded system, so our contributions pay for the retirees.

If we do what is proposed with County Co-ops, The FICA payments will stop and county taxes will fund SS. In the common example you have provided, either the county where income was earned pays for the retiree or the county where he resides pays. Both situations are unfair, since neither county had a chance to save funds for retirement of the individual. It is a federal obligation that they promised.

So can we require the fed to pay without making FICA payments? That will wreck the deficit.

Phasing out the entire program would be useful.

Perhaps we need to exclude SS from our little plan and let the fed continue to collect taxes and pay retirees.

Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

Sounds a lot like the dreaded public option. It sounds like a good idea and I am glad people are starting to talk about what to do with the exploding cost of these programs. I am skeptical because the plan sounds a little rough at the moment, but I feel like it is fundamentally a good idea.

Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

Originally Posted by reefedjib

And here is the problem, as I see it. The federal government has promised a certain amount of social security to retiring and about to retire individuals, based on their income. However, it is an unfunded system, so our contributions pay for the retirees.

If we do what is proposed with County Co-ops, The FICA payments will stop and county taxes will fund SS. In the common example you have provided, either the county where income was earned pays for the retiree or the county where he resides pays. Both situations are unfair, since neither county had a chance to save funds for retirement of the individual. It is a federal obligation that they promised.

So can we require the fed to pay without making FICA payments? That will wreck the deficit.

Phasing out the entire program would be useful.

Perhaps we need to exclude SS from our little plan and let the fed continue to collect taxes and pay retirees.

What a trap! What a bunch of crooks!

The best way to do it is, cancel out all benefits, except for maybe SSD, for everyone under 35, people would no longer have to contribute but their pay outs will be lowered based on the time away from official retirement age.

We could also cut Medicare benefits and transfer the savings to shore up SS.
Subject all people who are receiving SS to an extra 401k/retirement account tax.
Allow opt outs for those who don't want it and they will not have to pay the tax.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard

Re: Getting rid of entitlements or County Cooperatives

Originally Posted by drz-400

Sounds a lot like the dreaded public option. It sounds like a good idea and I am glad people are starting to talk about what to do with the exploding cost of these programs. I am skeptical because the plan sounds a little rough at the moment, but I feel like it is fundamentally a good idea.

Well, it isn't like the public option since the public option is a direct government program. Co-ops are semi private. There funding comes from public sources, but their operations are private.